Melco Management Accounting Research

Discussion Paper Series

No.MDP2020-003

Community capacity and accountability:

A case of transportation service development for the elderly

March 2020

Keita Inoue*

Assistant Professor, Faculty of Economics, Seikei University

3-3-1 Kichijoji-Kitamachi, Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8633, Japan

keita.inoue@econ.seikei.ac.jp

Yoshitaka Shirinashihama

Associate Professor, Faculty of Literature and Social Sciences, Yamagata University

Masafumi Fujino

Professor, College of Economics, Nihon University

*Corresponding author

The Melco Foundation

Nagoya, Japan

Discussion Paper Series of the Melco Management Accounting Research, in order to promote

the study of management accounting, has published this unfinished paper onto the Web. Please

obtain the permission of the author when citing this paper.

1

Community capacity and accountability:

A case of transportation service development for the elderly

Keita Inoue

Faculty of Economics, Seikei University

Yoshitaka Shirinashihama

Faculty of Literature and Social Sciences, Yamagata University

Masafumi Fujino

College of Economics, Nihon University

Abstract

Current studies suggest that participative accountability practices may have

positive or negative effects on communities. However, there is a knowledge gap in

the process of using mechanisms of accountability for community-based activities.

This study explores how non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and non-profit

organizations (NPOs) implement downward accountability initiatives to

communities through participative practices. It builds upon a qualitative case study

on the accountability practices in the transportation project for the elderly in

Yamagata, Japan. It shows how enhancing community capacity was essential for

the NGO/NPO to implement downward accountability to communities. In line

with the development of accountability mechanisms, enhancing the four

characteristics of community capacity – the sense of community, level of

commitment, ability to solve problems, and access to resources – enabled

NGOs/NPOs to implement community accountability effectively. It also shows

how community capacity enhances the effectiveness of downward accountability

practices. It provides new insights into the roles and challenges of accountability

in participative welfare service development, which few accounting and

accountability studies on NGOs/NPOs have clarified.

2

Keywords: Community capacity; Community involvement; Accountability; Non-profit

organizations

1. Introduction

This study discusses the role of accountability in welfare service development for

communities. Welfare services for communities are developed and delivered based on

community-based activities among public sector, private sector, and community organizations. In

particular, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and non-profit organizations (NPOs) play a

significant role (Hall & O'Dwyer 2017) in delivering welfare services efficiently and effectively.

One key task of an NGO/NPO is to obtain the support of communities in implementing a mutual

aid project. NGOs/NPOs seek to increase the opportunities available for communities to select

welfare services for themselves by encouraging community members to be involved in welfare

service delivery and mobilizing available community resources (Bovaird 2007; Pestoff 2014).

However, community initiatives are hindered because community members are often reluctant to

support NGO/NPO activities. Facilitating community involvement is essential in conducting

community initiatives. Although recent research has argued for the effectiveness of participative

practices for communities (Agyemang et al. 2019; O’Dwyer & Unerman 2010; O’Leary 2017),

it has not clarified how challenges are resolved when encouraging community members to engage

in the public services delivery process. We analyzed how NGOs/NPOs implemented downward

accountability to communities through participative practices by conducting a case study on

transportation service development for the elderly.

In the NGO/NPO accountability literature, the term “social accountability” is often used to

describe the accountability relationships between NGOs/NPOs and their communities (O’Dwyer

& Unerman 2007). These studies highlighted this form of accountability, particularly downward

accountability, as an endeavor through which community members are afforded opportunities to

participate in welfare service development for themselves. Current research discusses the

importance of accountability in grassroots activities, including human rights advocacy or

community-led HIV/AIDS initiatives (Awio et al. 2011; O’Dwyer & Unerman 2008, 2010;

O’Leary 2017); micro-financing for low-income, poor, and excluded individuals (Dixon et al.

2006; Marini et al. 2017); and natural disaster recovery efforts (Taylor et al. 2014). However, the

participatory accountability mechanisms that aid these objectives were challenged, particularly

because of the inability of community members to articulate their genuine interests in a

meaningful and coherent manner (O’Dwyer & Unerman 2010; O’Leary 2017). Additionally, how

community involvement impacts the way accountability is encouraged at the community level

3

remains under-researched (Agostino & Arnaboldi 2018; O’Dwyer & Unerman 2008, 2010;

O’Leary 2017; Yang & Northcott 2019). When literature has discussed NGO/NPO accountability

practices, it has focused on how funders of NGOs/NPOs (donors, foundations, grantors, and

patrons) have shaped accountability priorities and practices within the NGO/NPO (Dixon et al.

2006; O’Dwyer & Unerman 2008). This focus has prevailed, even in studies in which

NGOs/NPOs have instigated community initiatives (O’Dwyer & Unerman 2010). Although

recent research argues the importance of participative practices (O’Dwyer & Unerman 2010;

O’Leary 2017), little is known on how such practices can encourage accountability to

communities.

This paper clarifies how community accountability is encouraged by enhancing the ability

of the community to resolve issues. Promoting community involvement in projects helps the

members conceive projects for themselves, which enhances the ability of the community to

provide welfare services effectively (Ebrahim 2003, 2016). However, in urban area community

initiatives, encouraging community involvement is challenging due to the extent of the agenda,

ambiguity of roles, and expectations of various actors (Chaskin 2001, p.316). We draw on the

concept of community capacity (Chaskin 2001; Saegert 2006) when elaborating on community

accountability practices. Community capacity can be leveraged to solve collective challenges and

improve the well-being of a given community (Chaskin 2001, p.295). Community capacity has

four characteristics: the sense of community, level of commitment, ability to solve problems, and

access to resources. Therefore, we argue that enhancing the four characteristics of community

capacity enables NGOs/NPOs to implement community accountability initiatives effectively.

This research focuses on accountability issues in encouraging community members to be

involved in a transportation service development project for the elderly in Yamagata, Japan. We

acquired significant knowledge through our interviews with the professionals and the community

members who participated in the projects. The findings support the results of earlier research.

However, our approach differs from those studies in four ways.

First, we showed the need to examine how the limitations of downward accountability are

overcome during participative processes. Prior studies have argued that downward accountability

is enhanced through participative processes (Awio et al. 2011; Dixon et al. 2006; Marini et al.

2017; O’Dwyer & Unerman 2008, 2010; O’Leary 2017; Taylor et al. 2014). However, the

problem of creating and encouraging community consensus is often difficult due to the breadth of

the agenda, ambiguity of roles, and different expectations of various actors (Chaskin 2001, p.316).

In our case study, we also saw the challenges of participative process, such as objections from

some community supporters who did not clearly understand the transportation issue for the elderly.

This shows the limitations of downward accountability. We argue that the enhancement of

4

community capacity overcomes the limitations of accountability. Furthermore, during the process

of enhancing community capacity, we showed that the range of accountability is extended from a

few community leaders to a large number of community members. This extension suggests the

possibility of community accountability.

Second, by drawing on the concept of community capacity (Chaskin 2001; Saegert 2006),

we clarified how the development and use of different tools enhanced accountability. O’Leary

(2017) discussed how different tools, including surveys and social mappings, were developed and

used to implement accountability to community. In our case study, we also saw how different tools,

including two surveys for the elderly, activity plans for the surveys, and a collective statement (i.e.,

the Prospectus) were used to enhance accountability to community leaders and members. This

supports the argument of prior research. Furthermore, we explained how the development and use

of individual tools enhanced accountability in relation to the four elements of community capacity

(i.e., sense of community, level of commitment, ability to solve problems, and access to resources).

Third, we clarified the extension of accountability. Prior research has paid little attention to

how community involvement impacts the way accountability is implemented at the community

level (Agostino & Arnaboldi 2018; O’Dwyer & Unerman 2008, 2010; O’Leary 2017; Yang &

Northcott 2019). From the “to whom” and “how” perspectives (Ebrahim 2016), we further

analyzed how accountability differs across two surveys for the elderly. During the survey episodes,

we saw that the range of community involvement was extended from professionals and a few

community leaders to a large number of community members, other public organizations (e.g.,

the police agency), and private organizations (e.g., a supermarket). In relation to the “to whom”

and “how” perspectives (Ebrahim 2016), this finding suggests the possibility of community

accountability beyond the range of downward accountability discussed in prior research

(O’Dwyer & Unerman 2008, 2010; O’Leary 2017).

Finally, we clarified the accountability process through community involvement in an

urban area, which few NPO/NGO accountability studies have discussed. In an urban area,

community initiatives, encouraging community involvement is challenging due to the extent of

the agenda, ambiguity of roles, and expectations of various actors (Chaskin 2001, p.316).

However, most studies pay more attention to the case of international NGOs that support

community issues (e.g., health and education) in developing countries (O’Dwyer & Unerman

2008, 2010; O’Leary 2017); there is a lack of knowledge on the mechanisms that encourage

accountability for community-based activities in an urban area (Hall & O'Dwyer 2017). To fill

this research gap, we have demonstrated that the four elements of community capacity are vital

for the analysis on how to develop and use tools to enhance accountability in an urban area.

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 details the existing literature, and introduces

5

the theoretical framework. It is followed by a discussion of the empirical site and the research

methods in Section 3. Thereafter, in Section 4, we discuss the development processes of

transportation projects through community involvement. The roles and challenges of community

accountability are analyzed in Section 5. Finally, the conclusions are provided in Section 6.

2. Literature review

2.1. Downward accountability to communities

Accountability to multiple stakeholders can be a significant issue for NGOs/NPOs when

providing welfare services for communities (Hall & O'Dwyer 2017). Existing studies have

identified two types of NGO/NPO accountability (O’Dwyer & Unerman 2008). The first type of

accountability is called upward accountability. Upward accountability requires NGOs/NPOs to

be accountable to the funders of the NGO/NPO, namely, the donors, foundations, grantors, and

patrons. The second is called downward accountability. Downward accountability requires

NGOs/NPOs to be accountable to the recipients of services, namely, the beneficiaries and the

community users of services. Prior research focused on the upward accountability of NGOs/NPOs.

In contrast, some research focused more on downward accountability to the community users than

upward accountability to the funders by addressing the diversified needs of welfare services

(Agyemang et al. 2009; Ebrahim 2003, 2016; Hall & O'Dwyer 2017; O’Dwyer & Unerman 2010;

O’Leary 2017). These studies highlight this form of accountability as an endeavor where

community members are allowed to be involved in welfare service development for themselves.

Only a few studies examine the role of community involvement in the development and

operation of accounting practices (O’Dwyer & Unerman 2010; O’Leary 2017). O’Dwyer &

Unerman (2010) and O’Leary (2017) clarify the extent to which downward accountability to

community users contribute to the effectiveness of rights-based approaches on their development.

The rights-based approach focuses on helping developing communities assert their rights on self-

determination and on the fulfillment of political, civil, economic, and social rights. O’Leary (2017)

highlighted the importance of community involvement in the process of accountability practices.

O’Leary showed that communities are key to the accountability mechanisms as this allows for the

expression of values and beliefs that underpin the NGO work within the mechanisms. This is

based on two case studies of NGOs seeking to transform their target communities into active,

engaged, and self-determined citizens. O’Leary argues that the involvement of communities in

accountability practices is fundamental to generating transformative learning opportunities.

However, the participatory accountability mechanisms that aid these objectives were found

6

to be problematic, particularly in terms of the inability of communities to articulate their genuine

interests in a meaningful and coherent manner (O’Dwyer & Unerman 2010; O’Leary 2017). For

instance, O’Dwyer & Unerman (2010) found variations, in practice, in the substantive

implementation of community accountability mechanisms and identified several challenges to

implementation, including insufficient local NGO attention to downward accountability to

communities due to the control of locally-based NGOs by local elites who may be distant from,

and unrepresentative of, local communities. Their findings questioned the rhetorical commitments

to downward accountability to communities embedded in the rights-based approach.

These existing studies suggest that participative accountability practices may have positive

and negative effects. Little is known of how such practices encourage accountability to

community. We focus on how NGOs/NPOs implement community accountability through

addressing challenges in the community.

2.2. Community accountability and capacity

Promoting participative projects helps community members conceive projects for

themselves, which enhances the ability of the community to provide welfare services effectively

(Ebrahim 2003, 2016). However, in urban area community initiatives, the problem of creating and

implementing community consensus is often more difficult due to the breadth of the agenda, the

ambiguity of roles, and the different expectations of various actors (Chaskin 2001, p.316), which

cause challenges when implementing community accountability initiatives. We draw on the

concept of community capacity (Chaskin 2001; Saegert 2006) when elaborating on community

accountability practices. Community capacity can be leveraged to handle collective challenges

and improve the well-being of a given community (Chaskin 2001, p.295). Community capacity

has four characteristics, which are the sense of community, level of commitment, ability to solve

problems, and access to resources.

The sense of community reflects the degree of connectedness between professionals and

community members, and the recognition of the mutuality of the circumstances, including a

threshold level of collectively held values, norms, and visions (Chaskin 2001, p.296). Although it

is often described in affective terms, the existence of a sense of community may also be based

largely on instrumental values that allow people to cooperate in support of a common good. Prior

research argues that socialization processes based on shared beliefs and values within groups or

organizations encourage community involvement, which enhances the sense of community.

The level of commitment between professionals and community members describes the

responsibility that individuals, groups, or organizations take for what happens in the community

7

(Chaskin 2001, p.296). The level of commitment has two main aspects, which are the existence

of community members who see themselves as stakeholders in the collective well-being of the

neighborhood, and the willingness of these members to be involved in community initiatives.

Community members may play a key role in designing and operating welfare service programs,

and NPOs/NGOs need to enhance their levels of commitment through their involvement in

community initiatives (O’Leary 2017).

The ability to solve problems—that is, to translate commitment into action—is an essential

component of definitions of community capacity (Chaskin 2001, p.297). Prior research discussed

the roles of planning and controlling in achieving collective objectives (Agostino & Arnaboldi

2018; Carlsson-Wall et al. 2011). These accounting and accountability practices include

administrative types such as performance measures and social types based on shared values or

beliefs. The ability to handle the challenges of the community members can be enhanced by

administrative and social accountability practices.

Access to resources refers to the ability to garner the economic, human, physical, and

political resources that support community initiatives (Chaskin 2001, p.297). Accountability

practices help develop social connectedness between members within or beyond a community

(Chenhall et al. 2010; Nyamori et al. 2012). Developed social connectedness can drive community

initiatives.

Two theoretical problems arise in building these four characteristics of community capacity

(Chaskin 2001). The first challenge is how to develop community consensus. In community

initiatives, there are costs that need to be negotiated between the community members regarding

their specified roles and responsibilities, multiple mechanisms of accountability, and resource

allocation (Chaskin 2001, p.315). The second challenge is how to operate community initiatives

based on a developed community consensus. The sense of community and the level of

commitment depend on the levels of consensus among the community members. The ability to

solve challenges depends on the effectiveness of the operation of community initiatives. These

two challenges are mutually connected and are related to the development process of community

initiatives. For instance, the operation of community initiatives may foster consensus or alleviate

tensions in negotiation, which enhances community capacity.

Moreover, prior NPO/NGO accountability literature has argued the importance of

analyzing “to whom” and “how” accountability is implemented (Ebrahim 2016). Through the

case study on the transportation service development project for the elderly in Yamagata, Japan,

we examine the accountability practices in community-based activities from these two

perspectives.

8

3. Research site and methods

3.1. The context of the community transportation project

The project was conducted in a community called Minami. This community is located

southwest of Yamagata City, Japan, and is a 10–15-minute drive from the city center. Several bus

lines run through Minami, which has a population of about 18,000. Its population aging rate is

about 23%, which is a few percentage points lower than the national average. Elderly residents in

Minami face challenges in commuting to the city center and large hospitals. However, Minami is

not perceived as a problematic or rapidly aging district, so the community residents do not

perceive the transportation challenge as a very pressing issue.

Two types of professionals play a key role in this project. One is a Chief Care Manager who

is the head of the Minami Elderly Support Office (ESO). An ESO serves as a one-stop consultation

desk for the elderly (and their families) to find and plan proper elderly care1. The ESO also holds

seminars and workshops on care prevention. The Chief Care Manager is one of the initiators of

this community transportation project. At the Minami ESO, three other elderly care professionals

work under the Chief Care Manager. In the project, they help the Chief Care Manager organize

and conduct project meetings and community events while providing regular consultation

services.

The Minami ESO was established in April 2016. Yamagata City commissioned an NPO to

operate the Minami ESO. In addition to running the operations of the Minami ESO, the NPO

provides a variety of elderly care services, such as daycare, short stay, home care, and nursing care

homes. The Minami ESO attracts new customers for these services through the consultation

services. The operating expenses of the Minami ESO are financed by the commission fees paid

by Yamagata City. The Chief Care Manager of the Minami ESO has to prepare annual plans and

submit them to the city government.

The other category of key professionals in this project comprises the community social

workers who work at the City Council of Social Welfare (CSW). The City CSW is an NPO/NGO

that provides community support services for the disabled, families with children, the elderly, and

the needy. Government subsidies and commission fees account for about half of the revenues of

the City CSW. The plans of the City CSW are developed in conjunction with the city’s social

welfare plans.

One of the community social workers at the City CSW was appointed in April 2016 to lead

1 Yamagata City is divided into 13 districts. Each district has an ESO.

9

the lifestyle support and care prevention services for the elderly in Minami. This position was

called the Lifestyle Support Coordinator (LSC) in the city plan. Yamagata City contracts this role

to the City CSW. The salary of the LSC is funded by the commission fees paid by Yamagata City.

The LSC, as well as the Chief Care Manager at the Minami ESO, are the initiators of this

community transportation project.

In addition to these professionals, the section managers of the Yamagata city government

are involved in the project. They continuously participate in project meetings and community

events. They explain existing city services, regulations, and finances. Additionally, they often

argue that residents should address community issues on their own. This argument implies that

residents should not expect additional government spending on new transportation services.

The city government plans and manages the programs for elderly care, community support,

and community transportation. The relationships between ESOs and the City CSW are outlined

in the city plans. For example, the city plans state that LSCs should collaborate with ESOs to

facilitate the social involvement of the elderly, information sharing, and networking among

stakeholders. In the plans, ESOs are expected to address community issues related to aging.

However, the issues to be addressed are left to the discretion of the ESOs. None of the plans

specify the issue of community transportation for the elderly.

There are various community groups in Minami. The community groups include 20 block

associations (called “chonai-kai”) and a coordinator of the associations (called the District CSW2).

The operating costs of these groups are financed by city subsidies and membership fees. Most of

the groups have a president and board members who rotate every few years. They do not receive

a salary, but are given a small allowance. Some of the group presidents and board members

participate in the project meetings during the later stages of the project.

The professionals and the community groups have several regular forums. ESOs hold

network meetings, report the annual activities, and explain the business plan.

2 The City CSW and the District CSW are different organizations. The District CSW receives

subsidies from the City CSW. We describe the cooperation between both organizations later.

10

3.2. Data collection and data analysis

This research took the form of an exploratory case study on a community transportation

project for the elderly. As Figure 1 shows, the project started in April 2016. A few months later,

the researchers started participating in the project. The project was dissolved in the summer of

2018 because different community groups used different approaches to the community

transportation issue. Multiple stakeholders, such as NPOs, the city government, private companies,

and community groups were involved in the project. We expected that this inter-organizational

setting could provide the opportunity to analyze the accountability mechanisms in the network of

public and private organizations. However, as the project continued, the involvement of the

community groups became key to its development. As a result, the community-centered features

of the project made it possible to observe micro-interactions among multiple stakeholders,

including the community groups, and the actual practices of accountability at the community level.

Data were collected through interviews, participant observations, and a study of

documentation. One researcher conducted a statistical analysis of data collected from surveys, and

presented the findings of the analysis at community events. At least one researcher participated in

11 project meetings with the professionals and the community group leaders. These meetings were

not regular. Participants discussed how to design survey questionnaires, how to analyze survey

results, how to show the results to residents, and so forth. The researchers also participated in three

community events. At the events, we participated in group work with the community members

and discussed community transportation topics, including how to use a bus to go to the city center

Figure 1: Timeline of the project.

11

and the transportation services that are useful to the elderly. The details of these events and

meetings are listed in Table A4.

A total of 21 formal interviews were conducted with the stakeholders of this project (see

Appendix). Typically, these lasted between 30 and 60 minutes, with an average of 45 minutes. All

interviews, except one, were recorded and transcribed. The interviews were in three categories.

First, we interviewed project members who regularly attended project meetings and events. They

consisted of the professionals in the NPOs and the managers in the city government. Two

professionals who were identified as the core leaders of this project were interviewed several times.

The interviews were relatively unstructured, but revolved around a few main themes, which

included the current state of the project, relationships with other members, motivation for the

project, and the expected outcomes of the project.

Second, at the later stages of the project, we interviewed the community group leaders, the

professionals, and the city managers, who participated in project meetings and events. There were

two rounds of interviews. In the first round, a recorder was not used since the participants were

not accustomed to having interviews. The interview notes were transcribed after the interview.

However, in the second round, they accepted being recorded.

Finally, we interviewed the superiors of the two core professionals. Through these

interviews, we collected data on the accountability practices of the NPOs where the professionals

worked, their superiors’ impression of this project, and their subordinates’ participation.

4. Case study of community transportation project for the elderly

4.1. Community survey as an accountability mechanism

The Minami ESO has received complaints from some elderly residents in the city who state

that it is a challenge for them to travel to hospitals and nursing homes and go shopping. The care

managers’ main role is to create care plans for the elderly to address their challenges. However,

the Chief Care Manager at the Minami ESO thought that the ESO works not only toward

providing such specialized services but also contributes to the community.

Really, the Minami district has its charms, like the motivation of its community leaders. It’s

written there that we’re going to make this Minami District “a district of peaceful living”.

Under the governmental policy of promoting a Community-Based Integrated Care System,

it is said that ESO should be the central agency for implementing that. But we truly want to

make this district comfortable to live in. So, since the goal is clear, if we put our minds to it

12

and work unwaveringly, we should really be able to do a lot of different things, you know.

(16/08/24, Professional 1)

As this quotation shows, this professional considers contributing to the community a goal

toward which they can work; her statement was in response to the concerns of the community

leaders of the Minami District. The community leaders held a meeting almost every month. Only

a few of Yamagata City’s 13 districts have a monthly meeting. Such meetings strengthen ties

among Minami’s community leaders and indicate a sense of community, which is one of the

characteristics of community capacity (Chaskin, 2001).

The professionals had been regularly attending these monthly meetings. Their participation

has reinforced the ties between them and the community leaders. Community cooperation is

essential for the ESO to contribute to the community. Their participation in monthly meetings is

meant to guarantee access to community resources (Chaskin, 2001), which they think is necessary

for the ESO to run community activities.

This suggests that Minami was already equipped with a certain degree of community

capacity. However, the professionals recognize that the community’s capacity was not adequate

for grappling with the challenge of arranging transportation services for the elderly. In the

interview, the professionals explained the limitations of the community’s capacity to mobilize on

this front, as follows:

As a professional of social welfare, I have a belief that ‘this would be an ideal world’, but

area residents haven’t learnt social welfare; they are really just living there, and there is a

different degree of enthusiasm of the people who just think that they want to generally

improve their own area. Even if we give advice based on only our own thoughts, like ‘Since

we’re expecting this kind of future, we should be doing this’, there are, of course, residents

who say things like ‘No, not right now, we ourselves can’t do that, and can’t think that far.’”

(16/8/23, Professional 2)

An ESO starts various things, so residents get pretty tired, as they get dragged into those.

So, we see their tiredness and get them involved or, sometimes, do the tasks by ourselves.

We also help out with the difficult parts. We work together in that way. (16/08/24,

Professional 1)

Although the professionals had heard that some elderly residents had trouble accessing

transportation services, they initially did not regard it as an issue to address as a whole community.

After the professionals visited and interviewed the people who seemed to have a challenge with

13

transportation, they finally realized that the transportation issue required community involvement.

As mentioned above, the community leaders have a general shared understanding of

wanting to improve the community. In order to work on the transportation issue as a community,

the professionals recognize that it would be necessary to turn this general sense of community

towards a shared understanding of the specific issue of transportation. The professionals held a

forum to explain the cases of the elderly they had interviewed (in relation to the transportation

challenges) to the community leaders.

The forum was open to all residents. However, getting people to attend community events

like this forum is always a challenge. Some community leaders attended the forum in response to

appeals made by the professionals. Their participation depended on the relationship with the

professionals. Others who had a relatively weak relationship did not attend the forum. Very few

ordinary community members were present at the forum.

The discussions at the forum fostered shared understanding among the community leaders

that the transportation issue was critical. However, they still doubted the necessity of their being

involved in the issue, and tackling the issue at a community level. Some community leaders

wanted to know more about the number of elderly residents who had challenges with their

transportation and where they lived. The qualitative evidence gathered by the professionals’

interviews did not function as a strong accountability mechanism for the community leaders. To

mobilize a stronger accountability mechanism, the professionals implemented the community

leaders’ idea of conducting a residential survey on the transportation issue.

4.2. Limited access to community resources

The professionals designed the questionnaire of the survey, and planned how to conduct the

survey. It was important to ensure that the surveys covered the whole of Minami in order to gather

information about the number of elderly residents who faced challenges with their transportation,

and where they lived. The professionals expected that over 1,000 elderly residents would be

contacted.

Due to a lack of funds to meet the expenses of the survey (for example, the expense of

printing questionnaires), the professionals requested funds from their own organizations. However,

the organizations were reluctant to donate the large amount of money that would be required to

cover the postage cost for over 1,000 people. In order to save costs, the professionals concluded

that there was no other choice but to ask community supporters to administer the questionnaires.

14

A community supporter is a volunteer selected from amongst the residents3. No expertise

is needed to become a community supporter. The City CSW states that the purpose of its activity

is to promote support systems for the elderly and the disabled in the neighborhood. In Minami,

about 100 supporters were registered at the City CSW. Their activities include attending once-

every-two-month workshops, distributing a booklet on city welfare services, and making door-to-

door visits to the elderly and the disabled.

The community supporters are to be rotated every two years. However, many serve several

terms in succession because the community members are usually reluctant to take on this role.

The community leaders usually struggle to find enough candidates to fill the positions. This

challenge indicates that the community supporters basically have a weak sense of community

(Chaskin, 2001).

The professionals do not have regular contact with community supporters. The

professionals decided to participate in a workshop to approach the community supporters for their

cooperation in the survey. At the workshop, which almost all the community supporters attended,

the professionals explained the importance of the survey as part of a community-wide effort to

address the transportation issue. As mentioned above, the community supporters are required to

distribute booklets once a year. The professionals wanted the community supporters to administer

survey questionnaires along with the booklets. However, at the workshop, they faced objections

from a number of the community supporters, who said that it was not their responsibility to

distribute the questionnaires.

It is difficult for community supporters that have a weak sense of community to have a

shared understanding of the transportation issue. Some community supporters who lived in areas

with poor transportation access (hereafter, “inconvenient blocks”) were more cooperative than

those who lived in areas through which several bus lines passed (hereafter, “convenient blocks”),

as the latter group did not recognize the transportation issue requiring a community-wide effort.

This lack of community capacity of supporters limits the downward accountability of the

professionals with regard to the transportation issue. Only a few supporters accepted the request

from the professionals to administer the questionnaires. As a result, the professionals had a

response rate of only 16% for the survey. In the convenient blocks, the response rate was close to

zero. In spite of the explanations given at the workshop, the professionals had limited access to

community resources, i.e., cooperation from community supporters (Chaskin, 2001).

3 The city government gives the community supporters a small allowance (6,000 yen, which is

about 50 euros). This is inadequate compensation for their tasks.

15

4.3. How to focus a sense of community on a specific issue

As mentioned earlier, for the survey, the professionals intended to enhance the downward

accountability to the community leaders and thereby elicit their cooperation in tackling the

transportation issue as a community. The professionals realized that the low response rate would

force them to compromise on the accuracy of the survey results, but, in order to ensure the

legitimacy of the method of analysis, the professionals asked an academic researcher, one of the

authors of this paper, to analyze the survey results.

The professionals held a meeting after the researcher prepared the tentative results of the

analysis. They invited the community leaders to the meeting, and presented their findings to them.

The community leaders were very interested in the results. Their interest was evident from their

request that the results be presented in a way that would help them understand the characteristics

of each block.

Professional 1: This survey result shows the characteristics of each block, you know.

Community leader 1: I think that if you bring it to the fore in your presentation, the audience

can easily understand, and then they can figure out more specific measures against it.

Researcher: For this discussion, I wonder if you have some specific blocks to be highlighted

because the blocks particularly have trouble with transportation. How about [Block A]?

Professional 1: [Block A] and [Block B], I think.

Community leader 1: [Block A] and [Block B].

(2016/11/16, at the project meeting)

In addition to this quotation, the community leaders made further requests to show detailed

analyses, such as an analysis on specific purposes of transportation and an analysis broken down

by age. In response to these requests, professionals and researchers revised the presentation form

of the survey results. This revision helped the community leaders understand that the

transportation challenge should be addressed as a community issue. The detailed analyses showed,

for example, that the elderly residents are the ones for whom it is most challenging to visit the

community center. At the community center, the community leaders often hold block events, such

as workshops on physical exercise or hobbies. Their concern is that there are only a few

newcomers to the events. When the professionals present the result, the community leaders

appreciate that one of the causes for their concerns could be related to the transportation issue.

16

Professional 1: According to the figures we see here, the elderly residents have difficulty

accessing the community centers.

Professional 2: I think the results may indicate that, at a certain age, people don’t go to the

community center and stop engaging in a hobby.

Community leader 1: I see it as a problem.

Professional 2: If you can provide more data on this topic, I think each block will be driven

to consider some preventative measures for the elderly.

Community leader 2: It seems that we have to think of some preventative measures.

Researcher: Okay, as for hobbies, you mean it’s better to show the results by age?

Community leader 1: For example, we have a health workshop called “iki-iki salon,” but

with almost the same people join the workshop. No newcomers. This workshop is essential

for almost all blocks to hold it.

Community leader 3: We have various events such as “iki-iki salons” and physical exercises.

As you know, some people cannot come. How can we help them? We always talk about

this, but we have no good idea. It may be related to this [transportation] issue.

(2016/11/16, at the project meeting)

Through these interactions between professionals and community leaders, the presentation

of the survey results analyzed from multiple perspectives (e.g., by each block, by age, and the

specific purposes of transportation) had been developed. It fostered community leaders’

understanding of the importance of taking on the transportation issue as a community. The

community leaders’ general sense of community is related to a specific sense of the community

regarding the transportation issue.

4.4. Community leaders’ commitment to the survey

At the project meeting, the community leaders also realized that some parts of the survey

analysis could not present a real picture of each block. The professionals explained that this was

likely caused by the low response rate. The community leaders understood that the low response

rate was because of the lack of cooperation of the community supporters. As mentioned above,

the professionals directly asked the community supporters to administer the questionnaires. The

community leaders saw this as a challenge.

Community leader 1: I think there were probably only a small number of respondents in

the survey.

17

Professional 2: Yes. The response rate was only a little over 10%.

Community leader 1: OK. The result was the result. I accept them. The survey did show

this result. You should say that you wish to expand the survey to collect about 50% to 80%

of responses next time you ask for cooperation. […] As for this survey, there were initially

some challenges with how to administer the questionnaires.

Community leader 2: I think that if you talked to us [before the survey], we might have been

more involved, and we would have different results.

Community leader 3: Many questioned the validity of the survey method. So, as

[Community leader 1] said, I think we should conduct not only this survey but also the

second and third ones.

(2016/11/16, at the meeting)

As this quotation shows, the community leaders came to a shared understanding on the

need to tackle the transportation issues through community-wide efforts, and proposed a second

survey. They also mentioned that they, as community leaders, would be involved in the second

survey, eliminating the need for professionals directly requesting community supporters to

administer it.

The community leaders’ commitment to the second survey became apparent at the second

community forum held a few weeks after the project meeting with the professionals. This forum

was held as an occasion to inform community leaders and members of the survey analysis. Since

the survey was requested by the community leaders in the first forum, it was only natural to use

the second forum to report the survey results.

In response to requests from the leaders in the project meeting, the analysis of each block

represented by each leader as well as the analysis of specific purposes of transportation were

reported in this forum. After the report, participants were divided into groups of seven to eight

people, and group work was implemented wherein the group members discussed the

transportation issues in the community.

As with the first forum, participation in the second forum was voluntary. Though

professionals and community leaders widely called for participation, only a few community

supporters joined this forum, which brought the total number of participants to about 15; this was

not a great increase from the first forum.

Participants in the forum included the president of the District CSW, an assembly of the

community leaders. This president had been an acquaintance of the professionals and had been

interested in transportation issues. He could not attend the project meeting with the professionals

in which they discussed the survey results for business reasons. At the end of the forum, this

18

president declared that the District CSW would administer the second survey in collaboration with

the professionals. This was the first occasion during which community leaders expressed their

commitment to transportation issues.

Furthermore, commitment to the second survey was incorporated into the formal

accountability mechanism of the relevant professional organizations and community

organizations. The Minami ESO stipulated that they would seek to provide transportation support

for the elderly as the only priority policy in their annual plan to be submitted to the City. The City

CSW included the survey in the action report of a social worker in charge of the Minami district.

In addition, the survey was listed as the top item in the priority initiatives for social workers to be

submitted to the Minami ESO. As well as these professional organizations, the community

organizations, for example, the District CSW, state survey administration as one of two new

projects listed in the annual action plan.

In all of these documents, there were no descriptions of the first survey. The first survey was

designed voluntarily by the professionals in their pursuit for identifying community challenges,

while the second survey was stipulated in the formal action plans and reports. As we will see later,

this promoted further access to communal resources.

The purpose of the community leaders’ commitment to the second survey was not merely

to enhance the accuracy of analysis. As stated above, the community leaders usually struggled to

call for participation in block events. The community leaders hoped that this survey would provide

an opportunity for more residents to be interested in communal issues. In a project meeting with

the professionals, one community leader made the following statement:

Community leader 3: All people involved in social welfare have this sort of issue more or less in

mind. But, honestly speaking, we know the current social trend that everyone is busy. That’s why it is

difficult to discuss or express this issue, I think. In that case, it might be worth doing a survey several

times as a way to overcome this difficulty. (11/16/2016, at the project meeting)

Through interactions with the community leaders, the professionals’ awareness regarding

the survey changed. In the first survey, the professionals were trying to identify concrete

transportation services and obtain data for introducing them. However, they realized that

facilitating active participation of the community should be prioritized over service introduction.

In an interview conducted before the implementation of the second survey, one professional stated

the following:

I think it is necessary to conduct a survey and focus on things that are desired in each block. But,

19

after all, that is not something that is easy to work out, so I would like to support the voices of the residents,

such as, “we want to do this or that” and “this is what must be done,” without rushing too quickly to build

a system. That is what I think. (4/21/2017, Professional 1)

Both the community leaders and the professionals hoped that the second survey would

enhance the awareness of more community members on transportation issues for the elderly. In

the first survey, the accountability targets did not extend beyond the community leaders, while, in

the second survey, the accountability targets were expanded to encompass wider community

members.

4.5. To translate commitment into action

According to Chaskin (2001), the ability to solve problems has to do with how to translate

commitment into action. To implement the second survey, actions such as designing, distributing

and collecting the questionnaire forms are required.

4.5.1 Design the questionnaire

Though the questionnaire form of the first survey was completely designed by the

professionals, the community leaders joined them to design that of the second survey. The

professionals and the community leaders held several project meetings to discuss how to design

the questionnaire form.

Bovaird (2007) suggests that, in the process of co-production between professionals and the

community, the responsibility for action tends to be obscure. In designing the questionnaire of the

second survey, there was a time when tensions were heightened among participants over which

party was responsible for the design. This happened in a board meeting of the District CSW where

participants discussed the draft questionnaire.

The professionals developed a draft questionnaire that reflected discussions with the

community leaders, and brought it to the board meeting of the District CSW. Although the

professionals were not board members of the District CSW, they had been permitted to participate

in the board meeting for some time. The design of the questionnaire was added to the agenda in

the board because, as mentioned above, the survey administration was incorporated into the action

plan of the District CSW. The board meeting was attended by community leaders, who had less

contact with the professionals, and the discussion on the questionnaire from that meeting extended

20

access to communal resources (Chaskin, 2001).

However, in this board meeting, the community leaders made endless requests regarding

the details of the questionnaire, including removing questions that could infringe one’s privacy,

adding multiple choice questions, and reducing the number of questions. These requests were

received by the professionals not as constructive opinions but instead as irresponsible critiques.

One professional in the board meeting refused to collaborate further by saying that she would not

design a questionnaire if these critiques persisted.

As we were bombarded by an influx of these complaints (requests on the questionnaire), I told

them that this was not at all meant as a request for a survey on behalf of the Minami ESO and the City

CSW. We developed this draft, consulted with the professionals, then brought it here, as we thought it

would be difficult for the District CSW to design and devise this kind of questionnaire from scratch. We

were happy without it. (4/27/2017, Professional 1)

The community leaders appeased the professionals by saying that it would get them in

trouble. The community leaders mentioned that the survey administration was incorporated into

the annual plan of the District CSW and explained that, for this reason, they were aware that they

must conduct the survey. It was decided that the professionals would remain responsible for

designing the questionnaire, and the community leaders promised to cooperate in order to conduct

the survey.

The community leaders’ commitment to the survey administration was incorporated into

the formal accountability tool, and this can be seen as perpetuating their action to cooperate in

designing the questionnaire form. This community leaders’ action represents the ability to solve

problems (Chaskin, 2001). This ability derived from their commitment sustained the process of

participatory accountability for the transportation issues.

4.5.2 Develop Prospectus

The professionals and the community leaders agreed to once again commission community

supporters to distribute and collect the questionnaire form. However, some community leaders

hesitated to commission this responsibility to community supporters. At first glance, it seems the

community leaders who appointed community supporters would have easy access to them.

However, as noted above, many residents were reluctant to undertake the role of a community

supporter, and the community leaders often struggled to find candidates. For this reason, the

community leaders were apprehensive about asking those who agreed to undertake a community

21

supporter’s role to also undertake the task of distributing and collecting the questionnaire.

In the project meeting, the professionals and the community leaders discussed postponing

the survey administration for a year. The second survey was scheduled right after the selection of

the community supporters, which happens once every 2 years. If they postponed the survey until

the next year, they could avoid the imposition of this additional responsibility on the community

supporters who had just been selected.

However, complaints were heard from the community leaders regarding this passive access

to community supporters. According to the annual plan of the District CSW, the community

leaders and the community supporters were supposed to hold a “gathering” at least once a year to

discuss how to address communal challenges. However, in actuality, some community leaders did

not hold such a gathering. The board member of the District CSW thought that transportation

issues for the elderly were precisely the communal challenge that needed to be discussed in the

gathering and, as an effort to tackle this challenge, they thought they should ask community

supporters to help with taking the survey.

The problem was how to associate the transportation issue for the elderly with the holding

of the gathering. The professionals and the president of the District CSW jointly created a

“Prospectus” that explained that the transportation issue for the elderly was an important challenge

for the community, and that a survey would be conducted to identify the problem. Moreover, the

Prospectus requested that the community leaders hold a gathering with the community supporters

in order to talk about these community challenges.

The professionals did not personally sign the Prospectus; rather, the Prospectus was

formally approved by the professional organizations and community organizations to which the

professionals belonged. It was distributed in the annual welfare meeting that was sponsored by

the District CSW, to which all the community leaders were invited. It explained the need for

holding a gathering with community supporters.

In conformance with the Prospectus, most community leaders held a gathering with the

community supporters they appointed. In these gatherings, the community leaders asked

community supporters to distribute and collect the questionnaire on transportation issues for the

elderly. However, similar to the first survey, it was difficult for community supporters living in

convenient blocks to understand the meaning of the survey. One community leader from one of

these blocks explained the passive response of community supporters when asked to cooperate in

the survey as follows:

Their response was not quite enthusiastic. It seemed they thought, “why do I have to do it? It just

sounds like extra work.” (4/2/2019, Community leader 4)

22

The Prospectus was effective in getting community supporters to understand the reason

why their cooperation was needed. The same community leader explained the importance of the

transportation issues for the elderly in accordance with the Prospectus, as well as the need for the

survey, to skeptical community supporters.

Well, you have this kind of document in place, based on which you can fully explain the matter to

community supporters. Only then do you get what you want. [Otherwise] they would say, “why do we

have to do this?” (4/2/2019, Community leader 4)

There are times when the professionals attended the gathering and explained the survey to

community supporters. Since the Prospectus was signed by professionals, their direct explanation

at the gathering made it easy to gain an understanding from community supporters.

I invited [Professional 3], a person in charge. If I would explain it, well… I would only have to

talk about what I heard. I believe that would do to some extent, but I serve only as an intermediator, so if,

for example, I receive a lot of questions like these, there are many things I do not directly know. It was

certainly better to invite [Professional 3], who was in charge of actually surveying the questionnaires

from community supporters, and to hear directly from her. Otherwise, it would not work this well.

(4/2/2019, Community leader 4)

Thus, thanks to participation in the second survey of community supporters living in a block

where the collection rate was zero in the first survey, the questionnaire collection rate increased to

more than 50%. In some blocks that had demonstrated an understanding of the transportation

issues, the collection rate improved by 100%. The overall questionnaire collection rate was 82%,

which is a large increase from 16% from the first survey.

In conclusion, although the community leaders expressed their commitment to the second

survey administration, they were faced with issues characteristic of this participatory process, such

as unclear responsibility and extended time because of the increase in the number of participants.

These issues could lower the ability to solve problems when it comes to putting the commitment

to the survey into action. However, since the professionals and the community leaders jointly

designed the survey questionnaire, as well as a formal document stating the need of the survey,

the Prospectus, they were able to avoid such a decrease in the problem-solving ability. The

questionnaire was thus developed, and, thanks to the cooperation of the community supporters,

the questionnaire collection rate was high.

23

4.6. Extension of accountability

In the second survey, one researcher, who is a coauthor of this paper, performed an analysis,

as in the first survey. After obtaining the tentative results of the analysis, the professionals invited

the community leaders to hold a meeting. Four leaders who had all been collaborating with the

professionals since the launch of the project participated in the meeting. In the meeting, first and

foremost, the collection rate, which exceeded 80%, was reported, and the efforts of the community

leaders were praised. Unlike the first survey, the community leaders did not raise doubts about the

analysis, and many of them responded that the analysis enabled them to fully understand local

states of affairs. For example, the survey showed that the proportion of people walking to the

nearby clinic was lower for those living on inconvenient blocks than for those living on convenient

blocks. With regard to this difference, one community leader made the following statement:

I think that urban integration is, to some extent, more advanced in [Block C] and other districts as

compared to [Block A]. I think that this would be reflected in the survey results, and, as expected, the

rates were 10% to 30%. This is a huge difference. It means it was three times higher. (11/27/2017, at the

project meeting)

This quantitative analysis on the local state of affairs revealed that the accountability for the

community leaders largely increased in the second survey compared to the first survey. It allowed

the community leaders to properly understand circumstances surrounding the transportation

issues. Their further aim was to attract interest from wider community members based on these

analysis results and to get them to be actively involved in the transportation issues. In a meeting

with professionals, the community leaders were concerned about how the survey results could be

used to draw interest from community members.

Community leader 1: How can these be… There are many opinions, such as, you cannot just

collect statistics and finish the project. How can we respond to these claims? That is what we are seeking,

and I feel we’ve almost reached this point. (11/27/2017, at the project meeting)

Community leader 5: You are talking about the next step. Given this questionnaire survey, what

should we do next? We took the trouble to administer a survey, and what comes next? Is there anything?

(2/7/2017, at the project meeting)

To inform wider community members of the second survey results, the professionals

24

decided to report the results in the annual debriefing session of the Minami ESO, entitled “the

Network Meeting.” The city welfare plan required the Network Meeting to be held once a year,

and it was composed of various sorts of professional organizations (medical institutions, police

agency and financial institutions, etc.) and community organizations. The Minami ESO invited a

large number of community members, including community supporters, to this Network Meeting.

In the Network Meeting held prior to this year, more than 100 people participated. While forums

in which first survey results were reported were held on an ad hoc basis, the Network Meeting

was required to be held at a fixed date around the end of the year.

The professionals and the community leaders arranged the contents of the Network

Meeting in order to get participants interested in the efforts toward the transportation issues. As

well as a session of reporting the survey results, they added a group work session, which involved

dividing participants by block, showing each block their survey results, and then having them

discuss efforts for the transportation issues in each block. The community leaders demanded the

presentation of the survey results that would facilitate discussion by block.

Community leader 5: I hope these survey results would bring some ideas, “what can be gleaned

from these?” Then, it would be good if we could find one that could best lead to the next step.

Professional 1: Maybe we should create a sheet that makes it easy to find that.

Community leader 5: For that matter, I think the intents of various parties are quite important, like

if we are willing to cooperate or if we don’t have any intention at all to do it.

Community leader 6: I think it depends on their attitude.

Community leader 5: Yes, but things are more complicated, I think. For example, they might be

motivated to cooperate, but it would be difficult to secure profitability so they would only do it if there is

public support. I think it would be quite interesting if the survey results could serve as a trigger for

generating ideas of a next step.

(2/7/2017, at the project meeting)

The analysis by block attracted attention from the community leaders in the first survey as

well. It was meant for the community leaders to understand characteristics of their own work. The

analysis by block in the second survey was deemed necessary to get a wider range of community

members involved.

The Network Meeting was held a few months after the project meeting. Approximately 160

people participated, which was beyond the expectations of the professionals. After the report on

the survey, people were divided into groups by block, as planned, and discussed the results of the

analysis. While some blocks confirmed that they had no issues with regard to transportation, other

25

blocks discussed a concrete action, for example, asking a volunteer driver to go shopping together

on a regular basis. Blocks with bus stops that were found to not to be used much were determined

to have a workshop on how to use buses. Thus, the survey results led people in each block to come

up with different actions on different transportation issues.

Additionally, discussions based on the survey results revealed a general trend of block

features, such as the family composition, income, and block culture, which underlie the

transportation issues. Blocks with a higher percentage of the elderly using their relatives for

transportation indicated that the older population in these blocks tend to live with their families. A

higher rate of taxi use indicated a higher income. In a discussion of one block, it was found that

people did not use buses due to their own pride.

The survey results were also expected to reinforce the accountability of people outside the

community. In a meeting with the professionals, the community leaders voiced the following

expectation:

Community leader 5: After all, we cooperated in the questionnaire survey keeping the next step in

mind. Then, we hope we are naturally inspired by something based on the survey results.

Community leader 3: For some people, shopping is difficult. They cannot go shopping even if they

are willing to. I think one way to deal with this difficulty is to talk to people in nearby convenience stores,

department stores, and supermarkets, and ask them whether delivery services can be implemented. As

[Community leader 5] just said about the inspiration, it seems to me that one way is to extend our

relationship with them. (2/7/2017, at the project meeting)

The professionals brought the survey results to public agencies and private companies in an

effort to extend the scope of accountability with respect to the transportation issues. For example,

during campaigns run by the police agency on surrendering driver’s licenses, the police agency

and the city government approached the professionals for reference against the survey results in

order to understand the effects of surrendering a license on the lives of the elderly. Similarly, a

supermarket in the Minami district was keen to know the survey results regarding the means of

transportation for shopping to discuss whether they should provide a courtesy bus service. The

police agency and the supermarket participated at the Network Meeting.

26

First survey Second survey

Accountability: Understanding that the transportation issue for the elderly should

be taken on as a community.

To whom?

Downward

accountability:

Professionals→

Community leaders.

Community

accountability:

Professionals and

community leaders→A large

number of community

members, other public

organizations, and private

organizations.

How?

Survey results were

discussed with a few

community leaders at the ad

hoc meetings and forums.

Survey results were

discussed through group

works among a large number

of community members at

the ad hoc meetings and the

annual Network Meeting.

Community capacity: Being able to take on the transportation issue for the

elderly as a community.

Sense of community

A general sense of

community toward

community improvements.

Rough analysis of overall

community situations.

A specific sense of

community of the

transportation issue for the

elderly. The survey results

were analyzed from multiple

perspectives (e.g., by each

block, by age, and the specific

purposes of transportation).

Level of commitment

The survey was

designed solely by

professionals in an

exploratory way, and there

was an extremely limited

extent of community

leaders’ commitment.

The survey was

designed through cooperation

between professionals and

community leaders. The

survey was clearly stated in

formal activity plans.

27

Ability to solve

problems

The survey was

designed solely by

professionals.

The survey was

designed through cooperation

between professionals and

community leaders. A

collective document (i.e., the

Prospectus) was developed.

Access to resources

Getting cooperation

from a few community

leaders.

Getting cooperation

from a large number of

community members and

community supporters.

Table 1: Summary of case analysis.

5. Discussion and conclusion

Table 1 summarizes different characteristics of accountability and community capacity in

the first and second surveys. As the table illustrates, community capacity and downward

accountability were enhanced across the two survey periods studied. Our findings suggest the

importance of the participative process for downward accountability to the community, normally

discussed in prior research (Agostino & Arnaboldi 2018; O’Dwyer & Unerman 2008, 2010;

O’Leary 2017; Yang & Northcott 2019). Furthermore, we have demonstrated that the four

elements of community capacity are vital for the analysis on how to develop and use tools to

enhance downward accountability. Prior accountability literature has not emphasized the

importance of building community capacity for extension of accountability (O’Dwyer &

Unerman 2008, 2010; O’Leary 2017). We elaborate on the findings in the following sections.

5.1. Limitations of downward accountability

Where welfare services are developed and provided through cooperation between

professional NPOs/NGOs and community organizations, community-based activities require

cooperation from more community members. This paper has provided empirical evidence of both

the importance and limitations of the participative process in downward accountability. Prior

research has considered the implementation of accountability initiatives to the recipients of

services, namely, the beneficiaries and the community users of services as downward

28

accountability (O’Dwyer & Unerman 2007). In our case study, accountability to community

leaders can be seen as downward accountability. Prior studies have argued that downward

accountability is enhanced through participative processes, such as grassroots activities, including

human rights advocacy, community-led HIV/AIDS initiatives (Awio et al. 2011; O’Dwyer &

Unerman 2008, 2010; O’Leary 2017); micro-financing for low-income, poor, and excluded

individuals (Dixon et al. 2006; Marini et al. 2017); and natural disaster recovery efforts (Taylor et

al. 2014). However, the problem of creating and implementing community consensus is often

difficult due to the breadth of the agenda, the ambiguity of roles, and the different expectations of

various actors (Chaskin 2001, p.316). During the two survey episodes, we see the challenges of

the participative process, such as objections from some community supporters who did not clearly

understand the transportation issues for the elderly. This shows the limitations of downward

accountability. This paper argues that enhancement of community capacity overcomes the

limitations of accountability. During the process of enhancing community capacity, the range of

accountability is extended from only a few community leaders to a large number of community

members. This extension suggests the possibility of community accountability. In the following

section, we further discuss the development and use of different tools for accountability.

5.2. Development and use of different tools for accountability

Although prior accountability literature has argued that the participative process enhances

accountability (O’Leary 2017), in reality, there are challenges during the process which hamper

implementation of accountability initiatives. This study draws on the concept of community

capacity (Chaskin 2001; Saegert 2006) to clarify how the development and use of different tools

enhance accountability. O’Leary (2017) discussed the case of international NGOs that help

community volunteers in developing countries to collect data on health and education, to identify

problems, and to plan activities for solving the problems on their own. In her case study, O’Leary

showed how different tools including surveys and social mappings were developed and used for

accountability. In the case of Minami, we also see how different tools including two surveys for

the elderly, activity plans for the surveys, and a collective statement (i.e., the Prospectus) were

used to enhance accountability to community leaders and members. This supports the arguments

of prior research. Furthermore, this paper analyzes how the development and use of individual

tools enhanced accountability, drawing on a framework of the four elements of community

capacity (i.e., the sense of community, level of commitment, ability to solve problems, and access

to resources) (Chaskin 2001).

29

First, the presentation of the survey results broken down by each block, by age, and the

specific purposes of transportation had been developed through interactions among professionals

and community leaders. This survey analysis from multiple perspectives increased community

leaders’ interest in, and the understanding of, the transportation issues for the elderly, focusing

their sense of community on the transportation issues. Second, the first survey was designed solely

by professionals in an exploratory way, and there was a limited extent of community leaders’

commitment. In the episode of clear statement of the second survey in formal activity plans, we

see that specified sense of community described above increased community leaders’

commitment. Third, to enhance the ability to solve problems by turning the level of commitment

into an actual action, the questionnaire and the collective document (i.e., the Prospectus) of the

second survey were developed through cooperation between professionals and community

leaders. These tools were used to overcome the challenges arising from extending the scope of

community involvement, which encouraged community-based activities for implementing the

second survey. Finally, by using survey analyses from multiple perspectives, formal action plans,

and the collective document (i.e., the Prospectus), access to resources of cooperation was extended

from a few community leaders to a large number of community supporters and members. This

finding shows that the development and use of different tools enhanced the four elements of

community capacity, which enabled the effective implementation of accountability.

5.3. Community accountability

Prior NPO/NGO accountability literature has argued the importance of analyzing “to whom”

and “how” accountability is implemented (Ebrahim 2016). Furthermore, this study clarifies the

extension of accountability from the “to whom” and “how” perspectives. In our case study,

professionals designed the first survey to implement downward accountability to community

leaders. The survey results were discussed with a few community leaders at the ad hoc meetings

and forums. In contrast, through cooperation between professionals and community leaders, the

second survey was designed to implement community accountability to a large number of

community members, other public organizations (e.g., the police agency), and private

organizations (e.g., a supermarket). In the second survey episode, we see that a large number of

community members, and other public organizations and private organizations, as well as

professionals and community leaders were involved in the process of using the survey. In relation

to the “to whom” and “how” perspectives (Ebrahim 2016), this finding suggests the possibility of

community accountability beyond the range of downward accountability discussed in prior

research (O’Dwyer & Unerman 2008, 2010; O’Leary 2017).

30

5.4. Accountability process through community involvement in an urban area

In an urban area, community initiatives, creating and implementing community

involvement is challenging due to the extent of the agenda, ambiguity of roles, and expectations

of various actors (Chaskin 2001, p.316). However, most studies pay more attention to the case of

international NGOs that support community issues (e.g., health and education) in developing

countries (O’Dwyer & Unerman 2008, 2010; O’Leary 2017), so there is a lack of knowledge on

mechanisms of accountability for community-based activities in an urban area (Hall & O'Dwyer

2017). To fill this research gap, we have demonstrated that the four elements of community

capacity are vital for the analysis on how to develop and use tools to enhance accountability in an

urban area. As our study has been based upon a single community, it is necessary to exercise

caution in generalizing our observations. Nevertheless, we suggest that how accountability is

implemented by enhancing community capacity will be of value for future studies.

References

Agostino, D., and M. Arnaboldi. (2018). Performance measurement systems in public service

networks. The what, who, and how of control. Financial Accountability and Management

34, 103-116.

Agyemang, G., B. O’Dwyer, and J. Unerman. (2019). NGO accountability: Retrospective and

prospective academic contributions. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 32(8),

2353-2366.

Awio, G., D. Northcott, and S. Lawrence. (2011). Social capital and accountability in grass-roots

NGOs: The case of the Ugandan community-led HIV/AIDS initiative. Accounting, Auditing

and Accountability Journal 24(1), 63-92.

Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of

public services. Public Administration Review 67(5), 846-860.

Carlsson-Wall, M., K. Kraus, and J. Lind. (2011). The interdependencies of intra- and inter-

organisational controls and work practices–The case of domestic care of the elderly.

Management Accounting Research 22(4), 313-329.

Chaskin, R. J. (2001). Building community capacity: A definitional framework and case studies

from a comprehensive community initiative. Urban Affairs Review 36(3), 291-323.

Chenhall, R. H., M. Hall, and D. Smith. (2010). Social capital and management control systems:

31

A study of a non-government organization. Accounting, Organizations and Society 35, 737-

756.

Dixon, R., J. Ritchie, and J. Siwale. (2006). Microfinance: Accountability from the grassroots.

Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 19(3), 415-427.

Ebrahim, A. (2003). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development

31(5), 813-829.

Ebrahim, A. (2016). The many faces of nonprofit accountability. Renz, D. O. and R. D. Herman

(eds.) The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management (fourth edition).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 102-123.

Hall, M, and B. O'Dwyer. (2017). Accounting, non-governmental organizations and civil society:

The importance of nonprofit organizations to understanding accounting, organizations and

society. Accounting, Organizations and Society 63, 1-5.

Marini, L., J. Andrew, and S. van der Laan. (2017). Tools of accountability: Protecting

microfinance clients in South Africa? Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 30(6),

1344-1369.

Nyamori, R. O., S. R. Lawrence, and H. Perera. (2012). Revitalising local democracy: A social

capital analysis in the context of a New Zealand local authority. Critical Perspective on

Accounting 23, 572-594.

O’Dwyer, B., and J. Unerman. (2007). From functional to social accountability: Transforming the

accountability relationship between funders and non-governmental development

organizations. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 20(3), 446-471.

O’Dwyer, B., and J. Unerman. (2008). The paradox of greater NGO accountability: A case study

of Amnesty Ireland. Accounting, Organizations and Society 33(7/8), 801-824.

O'Dwyer, B., and J. Unerman. (2010). Enhancing the role of accountability in promoting the rights

of beneficiaries of development NGOs. Accounting and Business Research 40(5), 451-471.

O’Leary, S. (2017). Grassroots accountability promises in rights-based approaches to

development: The role of transformative monitoring and evaluation in NGOs. Accounting,

Organizations and Society 63, 21-41.

Pestoff, V. (2014). Collective action and the sustainability of co-production. Public Management

Review 16(3), 383-401.

Saegert, S. (2006). Building civic capacity in urban neighborhoods: An empirically grounded

anatomy. Journal of Urban Affairs 28(3), 275-294.

Taylor, D., M. Tharapos, and S. Sidaway. (2014). Downward accountability for a natural disaster

32

recovery effort: Evidence and issues from Australia’s Black Saturday. Critical Perspectives

on Accounting 25(7), 633-651.

Yang, C., and D. Northcott. (2019). Together we measure: Improving public service outcomes via

the co-production of performance measurement. Public Money and Management 39(4),

253-261.

Appendix: Information on the case and field study

Table A1: Regular stakeholders of the project.

Name of organizations Name of key players

The Minami Elderly Support

Office (ESO)

TKR（the head of the ESO, chief care manager）

The City Council of Social

Welfare (CSW)

Community Welfare Department

Principal Elderly Support Office

AOY（community social worker）

STM （ LSC ・ on administrative leave →

reinstatement）

TDA（LSC）

YKG（first layer LSC）

TAK（certified social worker）

Yamagata city government AB （ long-life support department, elderly

33

support section, section head）

Researchers University professors and students.

Table A2: Occasional stakeholders.

The Minami Elderly Support Office SAI

NGC（executive director of K social welfare

corporation・CEO of the nursing home）

The City Council of Social Welfare

COO

Community welfare department

Principal Elderly Support Office

NGO

SZK（general manager of the department）

EBE （ department of social welfare town

development, section 2, section head）

NGO

Yamagata city government OB （ long-life support department, elderly

support section）

GTO （ planning and coordination

department, transport section, section head）

34

District Council of Social Welfare in

Minami

KNZ（chairman）

HND（vice-chairman）

NGS（vice-chairman）

SAI（secretary general）

District Council of Welfare

Volunteers and Child Welfare

Volunteers in Minami

YUK（chairman）

KGM（vice-chairman）

Transport Network (private non-

profit organization)

SAI

HND

Table A3: Meetings that researchers attended.

yyyy/mm/dd Place Participants Contents

2016/06/08 Yamagata

University

TKR，SAI

STM

One researcher

Discussion about the first

survey

2016/08/04

Yamagata

University

TKR

STM，YKG，TAK

AB，OB

How to analyze the survey

result

The future progress of the

35

Researchers project

2016/10/26 Yamagata

University

TKR

STM，YKG，TAK

AB

Researchers

The analysis results of the

survey

2016/11/16 Yamagata

city General

Welfare

Center

TKR，STM

AB，OB

SAI （ Transport

Network）

YUK，KGM（District

Council of Welfare

Volunteers and Child

Welfare Volunteers in

Minami）

One researcher

Preparing for the second

forum (2016/11/26)

2016/12/20 Yamagata TKR Review meeting of the

36

University STM，YKG，TDA，

TAK，AOY

AB

Researchers

second forum

(2016/11/26)

Future progress of the

project

2017/01/27 The Miami

ESO

TKR

YKG，TAK，AOY，

TDA

AB

KNZ ， KGM ， and

others

Researchers

Preparing for the network

meeting (2017/02/16)

2017/04/12 Yamagata

University

TKR

TDA，YKG，

SAI （ Transport

Network）

Researchers

Design of the second survey

questionnaire

37

2017/10/24 Yamagata

University

TKR

TDA，YKG

OB

One researcher

The survey results

2017/11/27 Community

Center in

Minami

TKR

TDA

KNZ，HND，NGS，

YUK

Researchers

Preparing for the network

meeting (2018/03/08)

2018/02/07 Community

Center in

Minami

TKR, other two welfare

school students

（trainees）

TDA

GTO

NGS，KGM，HND，

YUK，KNZ, Two other

researchers

Preparing for the network

meeting (2018/03/08)

38

2018/03/20 Community

Center in

Minami

TKR

TDA，YKG

GTO

One researcher

Support plans for the block

associations after the

network meeting

2018/07/13 Yamagata

University

TDA，YKG

One researcher

Preparing for the fourth

meeting for considering

transport problems

Table A4: Events that researchers attended.

yyyy/mm/dd Place Participants

2016/05/13 Community Center in Minami The first forum

2016/09/01 Community Center in Minami The network

meeting

2016/011/26 Community Center in Minami about 20

people

The second forum

2017/02/16

Yamagata Industrial Innovation

Support Center.

about 90

people

The network

meeting

2017/09/07 Community Center in Minami about 80 The network

39

people meeting

2017/10/16 Yamagata city General Welfare

Center

The seminar

encouraging

transport and

going-out by

various life support

services

2017/12/15 The City Council of Social

Welfare

The second

meeting for

considering

transport problems

2018/02/23 The City Council of Social

Welfare

The third meeting

for considering

transport problems

2018/03/08 Community Center in Minami about 140

people

The network

meeting

2018/07/27 The City Council of Social The fourth

40

Welfare meeting for

considering

transport problems

Table A5: Interviews.

yyyy/mm/dd Place Minutes Interviewee(s) Interviewer(s)

2016/08/23 The City Council of

Social Welfare

29 STM Researchers

2016/08/23 The City Council of

Social Welfare

31 TAK Researchers

2016/08/23 The City Council of

Social Welfare

46 YKG Researchers

2016/08/24 The Miami ESO 39 TKR Researchers

2016/08/25 Yamagata city office 39 OB One researcher

2016/08/25 Yamagata city office 48 AB One researcher

2017/04/10 Transport Network 144 SAI

HND

Researchers

2017/04/21 The Miami ESO 67 TKR Researchers

41

2017/04/21 Yamagata city office 64 AB Researchers

2017/04/27 Community Center in

Minami

60 KNZ

SAI

One researcher

TKR，TDA

2017/04/28 The City Council of

Social Welfare

49 YKG Researchers

2017/04/28 The City Council of

Social Welfare

35 TDA Researchers

2017/04/28 The City Council of

Social Welfare

39 AOY Researchers

2017/12/01 The City Council of

Social Welfare

91 NGO Researchers

2017/12/01 K social welfare

corporation

70 NGC Researchers

2018/03/12 The City Council of

Social Welfare

67 SZK Researchers

2018/03/12 The City Council of

Social Welfare

68 EBE Researchers

42

2018/03/12 The City Council of

Social Welfare

34 TDA Researchers

2018/08/13 The Miami ESO 73 TKR Researchers

2018/08/27 The City Council of

Social Welfare

89 TDA Researchers

2018/09/06 Community Center in

Minami

19 KNZ One researcher